This reminds me of something a friend once told me... In the intro class to a post grad course on quantum physics, the professor started by saying that you could only really understand the subject with a good bottle of whiskey. This was apparently corroborated by the two top performing students finishing half a bottle of whiskey between them in the final exam.

Unlike the auto-electricians on this forum who believe they really know the law and the PPL's that believe they know how to fly a heavy, as an attorney I don't pretend to understand quantum physics.

So I need help from someone here.

Doesn't it seem possible that in the final experiment it's the sound (waves?) of the beeper that is affecting the atoms in such a way that it neutralises their otherwise light-like behaviour so that they, as a result, behave like particles?

If he had said that the beeper was in a different sound-proof room then that would obviously not be the case but the diagram he showed us seemed to indicate that it was set up in a way that opened the possibility of such interference?

Unlike the auto-electricians on this forum who believe they really know the law, as an attorney I don't pretend to understand quantum physics.

So I need help from someone here.

Doesn't it seem possible that in the final experiment it's the sound (waves?) of the beeper that is affecting the atoms in such a way that it neutralises their otherwise light-like behaviour so that they, as a result, behave like particles?

If he had said that the beeper was in a different sound-proof room then that would obviously not be the case but the diagram he showed us seemed to indicate that it was set up in a way that opened the possibility of such interference?

You can PM me the Nobel Prize to which he referred

Don't worry, you can safely put the beeper anywhere. In fact, you can make it not beep at all, simply record the data for later viewing, and the interference patterns still disappear (even if no one ever looks at the recording). It is the act of observation which reduces it from a probability (wave) to a fact (particle).

Unlike the auto-electricians on this forum who believe they really know the law, as an attorney I don't pretend to understand quantum physics.

So I need help from someone here.

Doesn't it seem possible that in the final experiment it's the sound (waves?) of the beeper that is affecting the atoms in such a way that it neutralises their otherwise light-like behaviour so that they, as a result, behave like particles?

If he had said that the beeper was in a different sound-proof room then that would obviously not be the case but the diagram he showed us seemed to indicate that it was set up in a way that opened the possibility of such interference?

You can PM me the Nobel Prize to which he referred

Don't worry, you can safely put the beeper anywhere. In fact, you can make it not beep at all, simply record the data for later viewing, and the interference patterns still disappear (even if no one ever looks at the recording). It is the act of observation which reduces it from a probability (wave) to a fact (particle).

Is that what he said in the video?

EDIT: I've just looked again. After unplugging the beeper the pattern returned to the light-like behaviour.

Unlike the auto-electricians on this forum who believe they really know the law, as an attorney I don't pretend to understand quantum physics.

So I need help from someone here.

Doesn't it seem possible that in the final experiment it's the sound (waves?) of the beeper that is affecting the atoms in such a way that it neutralises their otherwise light-like behaviour so that they, as a result, behave like particles?

If he had said that the beeper was in a different sound-proof room then that would obviously not be the case but the diagram he showed us seemed to indicate that it was set up in a way that opened the possibility of such interference?

You can PM me the Nobel Prize to which he referred

Don't worry, you can safely put the beeper anywhere. In fact, you can make it not beep at all, simply record the data for later viewing, and the interference patterns still disappear (even if no one ever looks at the recording). It is the act of observation which reduces it from a probability (wave) to a fact (particle).

Is that what he said in the video?

Ok, so let's blow your mind further. The same experiment but the detectors don't make a sound.

Ok, so let's blow your mind further. The same experiment but the detectors don't make a sound.

Confused (by a lack of knowledge) - "yes"

Blown mind (because I don't understand something I haven't studied) - "no" - there's many, many, many things that I don't understand and I just put it down to clever people's magic in order not to have a blown mind (which might render it more useless than it already is)

I think my real problem is that these situations are being presented on social media (ie, Youtube) and they are therefore being presented in such a simplistic way that complexities are left out (the way I present legal stuff on Avcom) to suit the medium.

As a result, (being well aware of the exceptional degree of my ignorance of the subject matter) I would be quite prepared to accept that, for example, the act of observing sends out "waves" or "whatever" that interferes with the photons in such a way that they lose their light-like qualities and then behave like particles. It's just that the scientists haven't yet figured out a way of measuring that.

Ah well! Back to white wine spritzers and a bad american skop, skiet and donner movie with lots of car chases, happy in my ignorance

I apologise if my posts were seen as an "interference" in a subject where I have no place being and you can keep the no bell prize

So, being totally (and I mean totally like in zero) ignorant of this stuff I googled quantum physics for the definition. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the background knowledge to actually spend time profitably on this stuff.

The problem for me with the You Tube vids is that they leave one (having zero background knowledge on the subject) with more questions (probably simplistic) than answers.

Back on topic. Must say exactly the same situation applies to black holes. Like any specialisation it takes a lifetime of study and work experience to have sufficient background to appreciate the complexities involved. We all like to think we know stuff but when one comes up against real experts in any specialist field (not just science) that's when one finally begins to get a glimpse of how much one doesn't know about that which one doesn't know.

So, being totally (and I mean totally like in zero) ignorant of this stuff I googled quantum physics for the definition. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the background knowledge to actually spend time profitably on this stuff.

The problem for me with the You Tube vids is that they leave one (having zero background knowledge on the subject) with more questions (probably simplistic) than answers.

Back on topic. Must say exactly the same situation applies to black holes. Like any specialisation it takes a lifetime of study and work experience to have sufficient background to appreciate the complexities involved. We all like to think we know stuff but when one comes up against real experts in any specialist field (not just science) that's when one finally begins to get a glimpse of how much one doesn't know about that which one doesn't know.

I used quantum mechanics a lot in a PhD work - but I can't claim to really understand it. I mean how can you really understand this:
1) Put 1,000,000 electrons at point A.
2) The electrons are actually quantum wavepackets, and there is a 0.1% probability that they are actually at point B.
3) Hey presto, 1000 of the electrons are actually at point B (without actually travelling there from point A).
4) But don't worry, they still have exactly the same energy as when they started (because they didn't actually go anywhere) so the energy difference to point B must now be dissipated.

So in the end, basically just use the maths, and trust that the physicists know what they are doing. (And surprisingly, the practical results agree with the maths, so it seems the physicists must be on the right path at least.)

PS - the physicists are still arguing how much time it takes for the electrons to get from A to B, even although they do not actually travel from A to B...

I used quantum mechanics a lot in a PhD work - but I can't claim to really understand it. I mean how can you really understand this:
1) Put 1,000,000 electrons at point A.
2) The electrons are actually quantum wavepackets, and there is a 0.1% probability that they are actually at point B.
3) Hey presto, 1000 of the electrons are actually at point B (without actually travelling there from point A).
4) But don't worry, they still have exactly the same energy as when they started (because they didn't actually go anywhere) so the energy difference to point B must now be dissipated.
So in the end, basically just use the maths, and trust that the physicists know what they are doing. (And surprisingly, the practical results agree with the maths, so it seems the physicists must be on the right path at least.)
PS - the physicists are still arguing how much time it takes for the electrons to get from A to B, even although they do not actually travel from A to B...

You see this is exactly the problem for a science doofus like me. I immediately have a number of (presumably grade R level through ignorance) questions and am not impressed (one way or the other) with the info because the answers to my questions might get me <ha ha> to understand the complexity of the original setup - yeah right!. Like:

How do they know the electrons from A end up at B? Are they different colours or shapes or tagged in some way? A simpleton like me immediately thinks that maybe the B electrons are there all the time and it's just the "energy" imparted to the A electrons that cause the B electrons to suddenly become "visible" or "measurable" or "whatever happens" to make the scientists think that they're at B. Kind of like Newton's Balls or the way energy moves through the sea to create waves?

So then I wonder conceptually how different is this situation to the one in which the scientists found themselves +- 500 years ago before Galileo zipped along with his telescope and theory about earth revolving around the sun and not the other way around. Maybe all it is is that the scientists haven't just figured out a way of "seeing" or measuring" this stuff?